Part 4: Bell’s “Hell”

By Trace L. Howard

Bell’s discussion of “hell” may be the most surprising aspect of Love Wins for many readers, because it is such a dramatic departure from the traditional Christian narrative.  Bell rejects any notion that a loving God could punish billions of people forever for acts they committed while on this earth for only a few, finite years. Bell prefers a different narrative. While he claims to believe in a literal, other-worldly place called “hell,” his version of hell is principally the “stories of choices” to reject God and go one’s own way. For Bell, hell is more the “present” burning, agonizing, and hellish experiences flowing from bad choices and decisions. He never considers whether these realities of suffering, flowing from poor choices, are in some way related to humanity’s fallen condition. For this reason, texts like Romans 5:12 and Ephesians 2:1 are passed over.

Bell illustrates his position on “hell” through the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16). Notwithstanding that the rich man goes to hell (lit. hades) after death, Bell argues that the story is more about the man’s choice to still hold on to his pride, ego, and status. As in the previous life when he refused to share anything with Lazarus, his heart remained hard even while in hell. His choice not to change, as a result, was devastating and thus Bell concludes that “if we can make “hellish” decisions in this life, he assumes we can do so in the next.” There is hell now and there is hell later and “Jesus teaches us to take both seriously.” (79)  Bell never explains though how this idea of choices after death actually works.

Moreover, based on the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, Bell argues that hell isn’t so much an image of “separation” but one of “integration.” In the story, amazingly, “heaven and hell are within each other, intertwined, interwoven, bumping up against each other.” (170). The older son is at the party thrown for the younger son, with the music in the background, but refuses to join in.  Jesus puts the older brother right there at the party, the celebration but refusing to participate – so then Bell concludes that “hell is being at the party but not participating – that’s what makes it so hellish.” (169-170); in short, people will literally “pop in and out” of heaven and hell forever, depending on the decisions and choices they make. Like many of Bell’s “musings,” however, he is hopelessly vague regarding how this process would occur.  It appears that Bell has intentionally left the answer to these questions ambiguous.

Although Bell’s “hell” is principally about the bad choices we make and the refusal to believe God’s “retelling of our story,” he seems to acknowledge that “hell” may involve more than simply poor choices this side of death and beyond. It may also be an “unpleasant” place or dimension that people experience after death.  Bell develops this concept through an explanation of the judgment of the “sheep and the goats” in Matthew 25, a passage which on its face would suggest that certain people will experience punishment forever – not for Bell.  Instead, he interprets the phrase “eternal punishment” (25:46) not as an unending time of punishment for sin after death, but as a limited period of time or “age” in which God will engage in intense correction. (91). Bell argues that God will ensure the reversal of our horrible choices even if He has to hunt us down and engage in intense correction in the life after this one. He does not describe exactly how this happens but it sounds quite “purgatorial.”

Response

Bell’s Philosophical Starting Point. The most significant problem with Bell’s analysis, and the one from which all other problems arise, is that Bell “ends up where he begins.”  His rejection of hell as a place of “forever punishment” is not based on a serious exposition of Scripture but instead on a fundamental, philosophical objection, grounded principally on what he believes a loving God can or cannot do. While this kind of God may engage in the “intense correction” of people, in Bell’s mind, He cannot punish people forever.

Bell’s Reading of Scripture. Bell’s statement that “hell” was the rich man’s choice to hold on to the status quo not only is fanciful but completely ignores the “other-worldly” characteristics of the story of Lazarus and the rich man, as well as the metaphors of punishment used in the story. Jesus presents a parable filled with realities that were shared by Him and His audience. While interpreters have differed on the force of the images used in the story, it is clear that Jesus believed that hell was real and characterized by torment. Further, the story illustrates that once God has rendered judgment, it is permanent. The ethical choices of this life have permanent, eternal impact. Once judgment had occurred for the rich man, there was no escape; this permanent, inescapable abode illustrates the result of “choosing” to serve self rather than Jesus (cf. Matt.  25:41-46).  Moreover, contrary to Bell’s view that heaven and hell are “integrated,” this story teaches that there is a great gulf between the rich man and Lazarus that is incapable of being crossed.  Additionally, Bell’s feeble attempt to reinforce his view by arguing (based on the older son’s actions in Luke 15) that hell is “being at the party and refusing to participate,” is utter nonsense and is simply “made up” – there is nothing in the story to suggest this.

Bell’s Treatment of Biblical Words. Bell’s predetermined conclusions dictate his treatment of words related to the subject of hell.  For the most part, his discussion is weak and unpersuasive.  Rather than providing a serious evaluation of the Hebrew word “Sheol,” used in the OT for a place of the dead or the grave, he simply states that the concept is murky and not very well defined (67). His treatment of the word generally translated “hell” in the NT (gehenna) is equally, if not more superficial, and is another example of the error of “root fallacy.” Regarding Bell’s treatment of “hades,” he quotes the texts of the NT in which the word occurs and summarily concludes, “Anything you have ever heard people say about the actual word “hell” in the Bible they got from those verses.” (70). That’s it! Further, with respect to Bell’s treatment of the Greek words aionios and kolasis, he attributes to these words rare or even non-existent meanings because they support his interpretation that the phrase aionios kolasis (translated by most as “eternal punishment” in Matthew 25:46), should instead be translated “intense correction.”

Finally, Bell’s desire to make his discussion of hell relevant and palatable to his audience leads him to read current nuances of words back into the text rather than permitting the texts to stand on their own – what is called “semantic anachronism.” Regardless of whether Bell likes it or not, during the time of Jesus, both He and His audience had certain understandings of hell and hades and the ideas of fire, burning, and agony were images associated with those words.  This would have been particularly true with respect to the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Jesus’ audience would not have understood these images as referring to how we can get “burned” or get “heated up” by painful choices. Bell’s anachronistic attempt to convince the reader that this is even a legitimate application of the passage is irresponsible.

In the final part of this review, we will look at Bell’s treatment of the cross and resurrection. It is in this area that his “liberal” tendencies become both clear and disturbing.

Tags: acts 29 network, churches in the woodlands tx, gospel-centered, love wins, rob bell, universalism, woodlands point community church

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 1st, 2011 at 10:32 am and is filed under Get Equipped.